And soon, the Supremes will remind the rogue Fifth Circuit of this fact.

Bill is a stupid yutz — to call Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment… a “strange phenomenon”.

Here’s the well-argued Fifth Circuit dissent (see at page 35 and beyond); it will be the majority at the Supremes:

…Why [would] Congress… have preserved “one of the most significant advantages available for unlawful entrants” despite its general purpose of placing applicants seeking admission on equal footing with applicants already present in the country. Ante at 21. This “seems strange to suggest.” Id. at 20. Petitioners, the majority opines, offer “no commonsense explanation why, as a general matter, Congress would want to deny bond only to those lawfully seeking admission into the country.” Id. at 21. There are a few: (1) bond has always been available to detained noncitizens already present in the United States; (2) as this practice exemplifies, government intrusions have always been tolerated at the border that would be intolerable in the interior, for the obvious reason that citizens and noncitizens alike expect to be able to go about their business without having to show that they are “clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted” if taken, or mistaken, for an otherwise inadmissible noncitizen; and (3) with only a little imagination, the government’s and the majority’s reading means that anyone present in this country at any time must carry the precise kinds of identification they would otherwise have only carried to the border for international travel, lest they be mistaken for an inadmissible noncitizen “seeking admission” into the country. [The Supremes have ruled repeatedly that that will never be the law.]

The majority seems to be unable to imagine what it might mean to be detained within the United States without the appropriate proof of admissibility, and, without a bond hearing, to require the services of a federal habeas corpus lawyer to show that one is entitled to release and deserves to see the outside of a detention center again.

This is not, or not just, a matter of human sympathy, but rather a matter of understanding one of the core distinctions in immigration law, and the very good reasons for it. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693.…

Confidential Note to Bill: if you’re going to report on legal matters, you probably should read some actual law.